un 


W1  - 


imr 


'V'  ^ *. 

H *-■•'*  ' 

'•:^  '•  -t^** 


CHINESE 


EXCLUSION 


ITS  BEARINGS  ON  AMERICAN  INTERESTS 

IN  CHINA. 


BY  REV.  GILBERT  REID,  A.  M. 


CHINESE  EXCLUSION 


ITS  BEARINGS  ON  AMERICAN  INTERESTS 

IN  CHINA. 


A Lecture, 


DELIVERED  IN  ROCHESTER,  N.  Y.,  MONDAY  EVENING,  APRIL  3,  ’93 


BY  REV.  GILBERT  REID,  A.  M., 


Author  of  “Peeps  into  China”  and  “Source  of  the  Riots 

IN  China.” 


1893. 

UNION  AND  ADVERTISER  PRESS, 
Rochester,  N.  Y. 


T the  conclusion  of  the  lecture  the  following  resolutions, 


offered  by  Rev.  Dr.  Gracey,  Rev.  Peter  Lindsay  and 
Thomas  Dransfield,  were  adopted  unanimously  : 

Resolved,  That  we,  citizens  of  Rochester,  here  this  evening, 
listened  with  great  interest  to  the  address  by  Rev.  Gilbert  Reid, 
a citizen  of  our  State  so  warmly  received  in  China,  on  our  polit- 
ical and  social  relations  with  China,  and  cordially  commend  him 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a 
fair  hearing  on  the  important  question  of  our  present  and  future 
relations  with  the  Chinese  government. 

Resolved,  That  we  view  with  regret  the  complications 
which  have  arisen  between  the  United  States  and  the  Chinese 
government,  and  express  the  hope  that  candor  will  prevail  and 
that  our  national  government  will  give  such  careful  consideration 
in  all  matters  of  h gislation  in  relation  to  the  Chinese  and  our 
treatment  towards  them  that  the  former  friendly  relations 
between  the  two  governments  may  be  restored. 

Resolved,  That,  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  we  hereby 
request  of  our  national  and  State  legislative  bodies  the  enactment 
of  such  laws  as  will  be  fair  and  just  toward  the  Chinese  within 
our  borders,  and  as  will  secure  the  passage  of  a treaty  between 
the  two  nations,  alike  creditable  to  both  and  just  to  the  world. 


CHI/SESE  EXCLUSIOM 


Its  Bearing  on  American  Interests  in  China. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

I have  lately  noticed  in  the  papers  a new  definition  of  the 
word  “ crank,”  viz.:  “a  specialist  in  that  which  people  have  no 
interest  in.”  Mighty  problems,  political,  moral,  social  and  eccle- 
siastical, are  agitating  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men — and  some, 
perhaps,  not  quite  so  thoughtful — in  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
But  I for  one  know  of  no  subject,  which,  notwithstanding  its 
vital  bearings  on  practical  issues,  on  large  populations  and  the 
honor  and  welfare  of  two  great  nations,  is  yet  pooh-poohed  by 
the  vast  mass  of  our  people  and  left  to  the  hurried,  arbitrary 
action  of  the  busy  men  of  Congress,  more  or  less  actuated  by 
prejudice  and  a sense  of  self-preservation,  as  this  so-called  Chinese 
question,  or,  in  other  words,  the  legislation  of  this  free,  enlight- 
ened, Christian  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  America  on 
the  Chinese  laborers,  the  biggest  attack  of  the  biggest  monopoly, 
with  the  biggest  capital,  on  the  poor,  down-trodden  workingmen 
from  China,  and  all  this  political  eccentricity  merely  because  that 
labor  is  Asiatic  and  not  European. 

It  is  of  supreme  importance  to  seek  the  preservation  of  the 
seals  in  Behring’s  Sound — important  enough  to  require  three 
years  of  calm,  intelligent  international  conference;  it  is  highly 
interesting  to  secure  the  rights  of  the  American  hog  in  Germany, 
interesting  enough  to  take  days  of  discussion  in  the  United 
States  Congress ; but  to  consider  the  protection  of  the  American 
man  in  China,  the  rights  of  the  Chinaman  in  America,  and  the 
honor  of  a nation,  such  interests  are  uninteresting,  and  so  much 
so  that  the  House  of  Representatives  when  about  to  vote  on 
this  bill  of  Chinese  exclusion  proposed  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Geary 
of  California,  decided  that,  “ under  the  rule,  fifteen  minutes  are 
allowed  for  debate.”  A majority,  moreover,  of  the  members  in 
both  houses  failed  to  vote  on  the  question  at  all,  an  index  of  their 
interest. 


4 


It  was  a good  proverb  of  the  wise  man  Solomon,  that  “ a 
man  that  hath  friends  must  show  himself  friendly,’'  And  this 
principle  of  friendliness  is  my  only  reason  for  ceasing  for  a while 
to  make  missionary  talks  that  I may  discuss  this  political  ques- 
tion, which  more  especially  concerns  the  statesman  and  the 
diplomatist.  Being  an  American  citizen,  native-born  and  native- 
bred,  I am  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  our  nation  and  people. 
With  Scotch  and  English  blood  in  my  veins,  and  so  indirectly 
an  immigrant  from  the  “ auld  counthry,”  I am  a friend  of  the 
vast  body  of  immigrants  who  come  to  our  shores  from  Europe, 
to  help  in  the  development  of  our  vast  territory.  Being  a mis- 
sionary to  China,  if  I am  loyal  to  the  Christian  teachings  of  our 
blessed  religion,  I must  seek  the  good  of  China,  the  security  of 
her  government  and  the  prosperity  and  enlightenment  of  her 
vast  population.  I am  not  the  paid  attorney  of  either  China  or 
America,  but  as  a friend  to  all,  I see  no  reason  why  plans  may 
not  be  formed  whereby  good  may  come  to  all  and  harm  to  no 
one,  or  in  the  words  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  just  as  true  in  this  day 
of  equity  for  the  Mongolian  as  in  the  day  of  the  emancipation  of 
the  negro,  “ With  malice  toward  none,  with  charity  to  all.” 

On  the  day  previous  to  my  leaving  Pekin,  I was  conversing 
with  one  of  the  most  capable  of  the  Chinese  Ministers  of  State 
at  his  private  residence.  While  I on  the  one  hand  expressed 
my  thanks  for  all  the  aid  and  protection  which  the  Foreign 
Office  had  extended  to  our  American  missionaries,  he  on  the 
other  hand  politely  requested  that  on  my  return  to  America  I 
would  exert  myself  to  produce  a more  friendly  feeling  between 
the  people  of  the  two  countries.  Later  on  I received  a letter 
from  a friend  in  Pekin,  who  informed  me  that  this  same  man- 
darin had  also  expressed  to  him  the  wish  that  I would  do  all  in 
my  power  to  influence  the  American  public  in  favor  of  the 
Chinese  laborers.  Having  such  a friend  I have  decided  to  show 
myself  friendly  to  him  as  well  as  to  others. 

At  this  time,  however,  I will  not  specially  consider  the  in- 
terests of  the  Chinese,  but  our  own  American  interests,  and 
especially  those  in  China,  with  only  incidental  reference  to  the 
welfare  of  the  Chinese.  A one-sided  view  will  produce  a one- 
sided policy,  and  this  has  been  the  trouble  with  the  Chinese 
question  all  along  from  the  start.  Our  friends  on  the  Pacific 
Coast  have  cried  out,  “ Hands  off  ; this  Chinese  question  only 
affects  us  and  we  must  decide  it.”  And  so  whatever  the  Pacific 
Coast  says,  the  United  States  Congress  and  Executive  have  done. 


5 


with  only  fifteen  minutes  in  the  House  for  debate.  As  the 
question  affects  the  Pacific  Coast,  and  especially  San  Francisco, 
far  more  than  most  of  our  cities  in  the  East,  the  rights,  peace 
and  security  of  our  fellow-countrymen  in  the  West  cannot  and 
ought  not  to  be  ignored.  Neither  should  they  ignore,  or  the 
United  States  Congress  and  Executive  ignore,  the  rights  of 
others,  or  those  broader  interests  which  concern  the  whole 
nation,  and  in  fact  two  of  the  greatest  nations  on  the  globe,  this 
young  Republic  of  the  United  States,  and  the  old  Empire  of 
China. 

What,  now,  are  the  bearings  of  our  Chinese  exclusion  legis- 
lation on  American  interests  in  China,  and  as  Americans  in  China 
can  clearly  see  them  ? Ten  per  cent,  injury  without  an  iota  of 
good.  I say  nothing  of  what  a skilled  diplomacy  might  do  in 
mutual  conference  with  Chinese  Commissioners,  but  of  what  our 
very  undiplomatic  legislation,  with  fifteen  minutes  for  debate, 
has  done.  I believe,  furthermore,  that  proper  legislative  action, 
harmonizing  with  the  wise  circumspect  agreement  of  the  two 
treaty  powers,  would  be  a decided  benefit  to  America  at  this 
time  and  mean  no  harm  to  China,  but  the  absurd  legislation  as 
exhibited  in  the  Geary  bill  of  May  5th,  1892,  is  a profound 
specimen  of  doing  harm  by  means  of  the  law,  seeking  to  expel 
the  Chinese  but  working  disaster  to  our  own  nation,  and  the 
clearest  illustration  of  the  answer  given  by  a class-mate  of  nine  in 
college  who,  when  asked  “ what  is  legitimate  homicide,”  said 
“ when  a man  kills  himself  in  self-defence.” 

I.  First  of  all,  then,  our  American  legislation  on  the 
Chinese  question  has  worked  harm  to  our  American  reputation 
and  the  honor  of  our  country  in  the  eyes  not  only  of  China,  but 
of  the  whole  world.  Both  the  Scott  bill  of  1888  and  the  Geary 
bill  of  1892  are  alike  insulting  and  offensive  to  the  Chinese 
government,  but  the  only  nation  to  suffer  in  point  of  honor  is  the 
party  which  is  at  fault,  our  own  American  republic. 

A feeling  of  good-will  towards  China  on  the  part  of 
Americans,  and  the  reciprocal  feeling  of  good-will  which  was 
aroused  among  the  Chinese  towards  America,  began  with  the  very 
first  formal  exchange  of  civilities  between  the  two  governments 
in  1844,  when  that  distinguished,  broad-minded  and  learned 
statesman,  Hon.  Caleb  Cushing,  represented  our  country  in 
forming  with  China  a treaty,  as  it^was  termed,  “ of  peace,  amity 
and  commerce.”  Russia  was  then,  and  always  has  been,  largely 
viewed  as  an  enemy,  owing  to  her  persistent  aggressions  on  the 


6 


Chinese  frontier.  England  was  also  viewed  as  an  enemy  on 
account  of  her  connection  v/ith  the  so-called  “ opium  war  ” of 
1841  and  1842.  Spain,  Portugal  and  the  Netherlands  were  all 
detested  for  the  avarice  and  cruelty,  the  bucaneering,  kidnapping 
and  coolie  ti'affic  practiced  by  their  subjects.  But  the  United 
States,  free  from  such  complications,  at  once  appeared  as  a friend, 
and  this  friendship  was  heartily  expressed  in  the  first  article  of 
the  first  treaty,  and  which  to-day  do  well  to  recall.  It  reads  thus  : 
“ There  shall  be  perfect,  permanent  and  universal  peace  and  a 
sincere  and  cordial  amity  between  the  United  States  of  America 
on  the  one  part  and  the  Chinese  Empire  on  the  other  part,  and 
between  their  people,  respectively,  without  exception  of  persons 
or  places.”  Notice  these  words,  and  especially  the  last  ones, 
“ without  exception  of  persons  and  places.” 

This  high  reputation  continued  till  1858,  when,  after  another 
war  of  China  with  England  and  France,  new  treaties  were  made 
and  ratified.  The  treaty  made  by  the  agent  of  our  country 
expressed  the  same  feeling  of  mutual  and  permanent  peace  and 
friendship,  and  in  addition  by  the  skill  of  two  of  our  secretaries 
who  had  been  engaged  in  missionary  work,  Drs.  Wells  Williams 
and  William  A.  P.  Martin,  there  was  introduced  a clause  of 
religious  toleration  guaranteeing  protection  to  the  Christian 
religion,  both  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic. 

This  friendliness  between  the  two  countries  reached  its 
climax  during  the  ministry  to  China  of  that  brilliant  man,  Hon. 
Anson  Burlingame.  So  popular  did  he  become  that  on  his 
retirement  in  1867  he  was  appointed  by  the  Chinese  government 
to  be  its  own  special  envoy  to  all  the  leading  treaty  powers.  On 
his  visit  to  his  native  land  he  was  able  to  make  a treaty  signed 
by  William  H.  Seward,  as  agent  for  the  United  States,  and  by 
himself  as  agent  for  China.  It  was  fitting  that  two  such  men 
under  such  striking  circumstances  should  form  a treaty,  more 
expressive  of  friendship,  breadth  and  mutual  respect,  than  any 
other  treaty  which  China  has  made  with  any  other  country,  and 
it  was  also  fitting  that  on  the  very  day,  July  28th,  1868,  on  which 
this  treaty  was  signed,  the  fourteenth  amendment  became  a part 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Do  you  wonder,  then,  when  I tell  you  that  the  Chinese 
government  and  the  Chinese  people  under  such  treatment  have 
been  inclined  to  regard  the  American  people  as  honorable,  fair, 
just  and  generous,  and  their  government  the  best  friend  which 


7 


China  has  had  since  she  entered  the  family  of  nations,  and  began 
to  swing  into  line  with  our  advanced  civilization  ? 

The  first  backset,  though  only  a slight  one  to  this  fair  name 
and  splendid  record,  was  in  1880,  when  a treaty  was  made 
regulating  Chinese  immigration  to  the  United  States.  There 
could  really  be  no  cause  of  complaint,  for  the  method  adopted 
was  an  honorable  and  fair  one— viz.,  mutual  conference,  and  the 
treaty  signed  was  an  harmonious  agreement  between  the  two 
powers.  If  complications  and  friction  must  arise  this  surely  was 
the  way  to  settle  them — honorable,  dignified,  just  and  respectful. 

In  harmony  with  that  treaty  an  Act  was  passed  in  1882, 
executing  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  and  suspending  the 
immigration  of  Chinese  laborers  for  a period  of  ten  years. 

In  1888,  under  the  previous  administration  of  President 
Clevela(id,  another  treaty  was  concluded  between  Secretary 
Bayard  and  the  Chinese  Minister,  suspending  immigration  of 
Chinese  laborers  for  twenty  years.  This  treaty,  however,  was 
not  ratified  in  Pekin,  probably,  as  I have  learned,  out  of  fear  of 
complications  with  other  countries  and  especially  the  Australian 
colonies,  and  because  they  regarded  twenty  years  as  too  long  a 
period  for  absolute  suspension.  The  Foreign  Office  in  Pekin 
requested  a re-examination  and  further  discussion  of  the  points 
at  issue.  Then  it  was  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
hurriedly  passed  a Bill  in  September,  1888,  and  signed  by  the 
President,  October  ist,  not  only  forbidding  any  more  Chinese 
laborers  to  come,  a matter  in  harmony  with  the  treaty  of  1880, 
but  forbidding  the  return  of  Chinese  laborers,  a matter  which 
was  not  in  harmony  with  the  treaty  of  1880.  In  other  words,  the 
Congress  practically  said  to  China,  “ If  you  don’t  do  as  we  want 
you  to,  we’ll  do  as  we  please,  whether  you  like  it  or  not.” 

Here,  then,  was  the  first  error  in  the  political  discernment 
of  our  rulers,  the  first  step  on  the  road  of  national  dishonor, 
rejecting  further  conference,  until  thereby  a treaty  could  be 
agreed  upon  by  both  countries. 

Though  a sense  of  shame  might  well  arise  in  our  own 
minds,  still  the  high  reputation  which  America  had  in  China  for 
over  forty  years  could  not  be  destroyed  at  once,  and  so  in  the 
decade  from  1882  to  1892,  during  my  residence  in  China,  I con- 
tinued to  enjoy  all  the  happy  experience  of  being  a citizen  of 
the  nation  which  all  Chinese  knew  as  China’s  best  friend.  Fears, 
however,  began  to  rise  in  my  breast  when  I heard  of  the  Bill 
passed  in  May  of  last  year  and  signed  by  President  Harrison.  I 


8 


managed,  however,  to  say  nothing,  and  every  one  around  me  was 
happily  ignorant,  that  is,  happily  for  me.  Of  course  the  whole 
matter  was  known  in  the  Canton  province,  from  which  most  of 
the  Chinese  immigrants  come,  but  the  larger  part  of  the  popu- 
lation still  lived  under  the  illusion  that  the  America  of  1892  was 
the  same  as  that  of  1868,  with  the  same  broad  political  senti- 
ments. I recall  how  in  last  June  in  talking  with  a brave  general 
of  the  Chinese  army,  and  had  fought  to  subdue  the  Taiping 
rebellion,  he  referred  with  indignation  to  the  aggressions  and 
hostility  of  the  Russian  and  French,  and  then  turning  to  me, 
said,  “ But  you  Americans  are  friendly  and  magnanimous.”  Of 
course  all  I could  do  was  to  add,  “ Oh,  yes,  our  country  is  very 
friendly,  and  especially  the  Christian  portion.  In  every  town,  a 
Chinaman,  while  meeting  annoyances,  will  yet  find  some  friends, 
who  will  help  and  defend  him.” 

The  first  one  to  refer  to  the  matter  was  the  distinguished 
Prime-Minister  of  China,  Li  Hung-Chang.  Through  the  recom- 
mendation of  a Chinese  official  friend,  I secured  an  audience 
with  this  celebrated  mandarin.  A large  part  of  our  conversation 
had  to  do  with  the  object  and  utility  of  missionary  work  in  China, 
he  maintaining  that  Confucianism  was  sufficient,  and  I modestly 
arguing  that  Christianity  meant  the  reformation  of  the  Chinese 
people,  and  that  it  was  well  to  see  whether  those  unreformed  by 
Confucianism  might  not  be  reformed  by  Christianity.  Just  as  I 
arose  to  go,  he  asked  me  when  I intended  to  leave  for  the  United 
States,  and  when  I replied  “ In  a few  weeks,”  he  slyly  added, 
“Well,  you  needn’t  come  back.  You  had  better  reform  the 
American  people,  so  that  they  will  treat  better  our  Chinese 
laborers.” 

The  only  honorable  method — as  a student  of  history  I may 
say  it  without  fear  of  the  charge  of  arrogance  or  conceitedness — 
is  that  which  our  country  heartily  endorsed,  advocated  and 
practiced,  all  the  time  from  1844  to  1888,  namely,  that  in  accord- 
ance with  International  Law,  the  two  countries  shall  appoint 
responsible  commissioners  to  confer  and  agree  on  the  articles  of 
a treaty,  and  that  such  a treaty,  when  signed  by  such  commis- 
sioners, shall  be  reported  to  their  respective  governments  for 
ratification,  and  that  after  the  ratification  Congress  shall  pass 
laws  to  carry  into  effect  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  and  in 
harmony  therewith. 

In  all  my  experience  in  China,  in  matters  pertaining  to  the 
rights  and  protection  of  foreigners,  I have  always  tried  to  impress 


9 


on  the  Chinese  authorities  the  advisability  of  mutual  and 
respectful  conference,  and  calm  and  moderate  deliberation,  and  I 
have  never  known  of  a failure  to  reach  in  due  time  some  kind  of 
a satisfactory  settlement,  if  such  principles  were  observed  by 
both  parties.  For  us  to  refuse  to  confer  with  the  Chinese  and 
agree  on  a treaty  is  either  a plain  acknowledgment  of  our 
incapacity  to  meet  the  skill  and  match  the  finesse  of  Chinese 
diplomacy,  or  an  open  confession  of  the  intention  to  be  dis- 
honorable, ignoring  all  the  wishes,  sentiments  and  protests  of 
another  treaty  power. 

II.  A second  feature  of  this  legislation  in  its  bearings  on 
American  interests  is  the  injury  that  will  be  done  to  the  Ameri- 
can sense  of  justice  and  her  high  standard  of  civilization. 

If  you  will  bear  wiih  me  for  a few  moments,  I will  present 
the  arguments  in  as  concise,  impassioned  and  judicial  a way  as 
possible,  proving  that  our  legislation  is  in  contravention  first,  of 
treaty  law  ; second,  of  international  law,  and  third,  constitutional 
law.  I will  briefly  state  my  points  and  give  my  authority. 

First,  then,  as  to  treaty-laiv.  The  act  approved  May  5,  1892, 
ostensibly  seeks  to  identify  the  Chinese  who  are  here,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  distinguished  from  others  who  are  forbidden 
from  coming,  and  be  thereby  the  more  easily  protected.  And  yet 
the  act,  as  if  to  divulge  its  intent,  is  entitled,  “ An  act  to  proInbit 
the  coming  of  Chinese  persons  into  the  United  States.”  The  first 
section  reads:  “That  all  laws  now  in  force  prohibiting  and  regu- 
lating the  coming  into  this  country  of  Chinese  persons,  and  per- 
sons of  Chinese  descent,  are  hereby  continued  in  force  for  a 
period  of  ten  years  from  the  passage  of  this  act.”  Thus,  in  con- 
sidering the  bill  passed  last  May,  we  not  only  must  examine  the 
new  features  of  the  bill  with  the  attendant  regulations  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  July  7,  1892,  but  the  previous  laws  en- 
acted by  that  act  to  continue  in  force. 

r.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  May,  1889,  con- 
ceded that  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Act  of  October,  1888,  known 
as  the  Scott  law,  was  “ in  contravention  of  express  stipulations  of 
the  treaty  of  1868,  and  of  the  supplementary  treaty  of  1880.”  As 
that  act  is  to  be  continued  in  force  ten  years  more,  from  May, 
1892,  it  is  still  true  that  there  is  a contravention  of  the  treaties 
made  with  China  by  the  United  States. 

2.  The  act  passed  October,  1888,  section  i,  reads  : “That  from 
and  after  the  passage  of  this  act  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any 
Chinese  laborer  who  shall  at  any  time  heretofore  have  been,  or 


10 


who  may  now  or  hereafter  be,  a resident  within  the  United 
States,  and  who  shall  have  departed,  or  shall  depart  therefrom, 
and  shall  not  have  returned  before  the  passage  of  this  act,  to  re- 
turn to,  or  remain  in,  the  United  States.”  That  is  in  plain  Eng- 
lish, a Chinese  laborer  returning  to  China  cannot  return  from 
there  to  the  United  States.  This  contravenes  the  treaty  of  1880, 
article  II,  and  this  clause  : “ Chinese  laborers  who  are  now  in  the 
United  States  shall  be  allowed  to  go  and  come  of  their  own  free 
will  and  accord,”  etc.,  etc. 

3.  The  same  act,  section  2,  also  states  that  “ the  Chinese  la- 
borer claiming  admission  by  virtue  thereof,  (i.  e.)  a certificate 
from  the  United  States  government,  ” shall  not  be  permitted  to 
enter  the  United  States.”  This  contravenes  the  same  treaty,  arti- 
cle and  clause  which  we  have  just  cited,  viz.  : that  they  may  “ go 
and  come  of  their  own  free  will.” 

4.  The  act  approved  May  6,  1882,  and  by  the  new  act  of 
May,  1892,  is  continued  in  force,  reads  in  section  14  as  follows: 
^ That  hereafter  no  State  court,  or  court  of  the  United  States 
shall  admit  Chinese  to  citizenship.”  This  is  in  contravention  of 
the  treaty  of  1868,  article  V.  “The  United  States  of  America  and 
the  Emperor  of  China  cordially  recognize  the  inherent  and 
inalienable  right  of  man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance At 
the  same  time  the  sixth  article,  guaranteeing  the  same  privileges, 
immunities  and  exemptions  ” to  Chinese  in  America  as  to  other 
.citizens  or  subjects,  adds:  “But  nothing  herein  contained  shall 
be  held  to  confer  naturalization  upon  the  subjects  of  China  in  the 
United  States.”  Thus  there  is  an  implication  that  naturalization 
is  not  to  be  claimed,  neither  is  it  to  be  totally  prohibited. 

5.  The  act  as  passed  May  5,  1892,  contains  a variety  of  new 

^features  never  adopted  before,  as  in  section  5,  “ on  application  for 
a writ  of  habeas  corpus  by  a Chinese  person  seeking  to  land  in  the 
United  States,  to  whom  that  privilege  has  been  denied,  no  bail 
shall  be  allowed,”  and  in  the  long  section  6,  “ all  Chinese  laborers 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States”  must  apply  “for 
a certificate  of  residence,”  and  on  failure  so  to  do  “ shall  be 
deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United  States 
and  may  be  arrested,”  {i.  e.)  adjudged  guilty  until  proved  inno- 
cent, and  finally  “taken  before  a United  States  judge,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  order  that  he  be  deported  from  the  United 
States,”  etc.,  etc.  This  is  in  contravention  of  the  treaty  of  1880, 
article  I,  which  says : “ The  limitation  or  suspension  shall  be 

reasonable.  * * Legislation  taken  in  regard  to 


Chinese  laborers  will  be  of  such  a character  only  as  is  necessary 
to  enforce  the  regulation,  limitation  or  suspension  of  im- 
migration, and  immigrants  shall  not  be  subject  to  per- 
sonal maltreatment  or  abuse.”  Also  in  contravention  to  the 
same  treaty,  article  II  ; “ Chinese  subjects  -s  « * shall 

be  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities  and  exemptions 
which  are  accorded  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most 
favored  nation.”,^ 

6.  The  Act  of  May  5,  1892,  Sec.  7,  says:  “ That  immediately 
after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall 
make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  for  the 
efficient  execution  of  this  act,”  whereupon  in  July,  1892,  Secre- 
tary Foster  issued  his  “ Regulations,”  ordering  that  every 
applicant  for  certificate  of  residence  must  bring  “three  unmount- 
ed photographs,”  and  that  every  photograph  must  be  a “ true 
photograph,”  that  “ if  the  collector  or  his  deputies  have  any 
doubt  in  regard  to  the  correctness  of  the  photograph  presented 
they  will  refuse  to  receive  the  application  and  require  a correct 
one,”  finally  that  each  applicant  must  bring  with  him  “ two 
credible  witnesses  of  good  character.”  This  regulation  is  like- 
wise in  contravention  of  the  Treaty  of  1880,  Art.  II,  which  we 
have  quoted  above,  viz.:  “Chinese  subjects  shall  be  accorded  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  immunities  and  exemptions  which  are 
accorded  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nations.” 
Also  to  Article  III. 

7.  The  different  bills  passed  in  1888  and  1892  have  ignored 
the  protestations  of  the  Chinese  Government.  On  September 
21,  1888,  the  day  the  bill  which  was  passed  by  the  two  Houses 
was  presented  to  President  Cleveland,  he  received  a telegram 
from  the  Minister  in  Pekin,  saying,  among  other  things,  that  the 
Chinese  Government  desired  “ further  discussion.”  The  Presi- 
dent, however,  expressed  the  view  in  a message  that  he  regarded 
the  demand  for  re-examination  and  renewed  discussion  as  an 
indefinite  postponement,  and  hence  he  signed  the  bill,  October 
I,  1888.  This  is  in  contravention  of  the  Treaty  of  1880,  Art.  IV., 
which  says  : “ Whenever  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
shall  adopt  legislative  measures  in  accordance  therewith,”  that  is, 
with  the  foregoing  articles  “ such  measures  will  be  communicated 
to  the  Government  of  China.”  In  other  words  it  is  implied  that 
the  legislative  measures  are  to  be  in  accordance  with,  not  in  con- 
travention of,  the  articles  agreed  upon  in  the  treaty,  and  that 
such  measures  are  to  be  duly  reported  to  the  other  treaty  power, 


12 


the  Government  of  China.  The  article  then  adds:  “If  the 
measures  as  enacted  are  found  to  work  hardship  upon  the  subjects 
of  China,  the  Chinese  Minister  at  Washington  may  bring  the 
matter  to  the  notice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  who  will  consider  the  subject  with  him;  and  the  Chinese 
Foreign  Office  may  also  bring  the  matter  to  the  notice  of  the 
United  States  Minister  at  Pekin,  and  consider  the  subject  with 
him,  to  the  end  that  mutual  and  unqualified  benefit  may  result.” 
Such  is  the  end  in  view,  but  I have  yet  to  learn  that  even  in  spite 
of  the  official  request  of  the  Chinese  Government  this  “ mutual 
and  unqualified  benefit”  has  been  reached;  in  fact  there  has  been 
an  inclination  on  the  part  of  both  the  Legislature  and  Executive 
not  to  consider  the  hardship  of  the  measures  enacted  and  the 
attainment  instead  of  mutual  benefit. 

These  seven  points  indicate  how  far  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaties  have  been  broken  by  the  measures  enacted  by  the  Legis- 
lature and  approved  by  the  Executive.  And  let  two  things  here 
be  noted  ; P'irst,  that  the  treaty  which  establishes  in  the  clearest 
language  and  the  broadest  spirit  “ the  inherent  and  inalienable 
right  of  man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance  ” was  the  so- 
called  “ Burlingame  Treaty,”  one  in  which  an  American  states- 
man and  not  a Chinese  mandarin  represented  the  Chinese 
Government.  And,  secondly,  that  the  treaty  whose  stipulations 
have  been  the  most  contravened  by  our  American  Legislation 
was  not  this  same  Burlingame  Treaty,  but  one  in  which  a Cali- 
fornia citizen,  Hon.  John  F.  Swift,  was  appointed  as  one  of  the 
Agents  Plenipotentiary  to  satisfy  the  wishes  of  the  Pacific  slope, 
and  in  which  the  Chinese  Government  openly  avowed  its  willing- 
ness to  suspend  for  a limited  period  the  immigration  to  the 
United  States  of  Chinese  laborers. 

The  first  blow  at  these  treaty  observances  was  by  the  Scott 
Bill  of  1888,  forbidding  the  Chinese  laborers  who  might  return 
to  China,  to  come  back  to  America,  and  the  second  blow  was  by 
the  Geary  Bill  of  1892,  making  a series  of  unheard-of  regulations, 
whereby  the  Chinese  laborers  who  are  already  here,  shall  be 
hampered  and  annoyed,  tagged  like  so  many  “ ticket-of-leave  ” 
men  in  Botany  Bay,  photographed  like  so  many  rogues  in  a 
gallery,  and  on  pain  of  violation  of  these  regulations  to  be 
deported  back  to  China.  So  Senator  John  Sherman  said  in  the 
Senate,  when  the  bill  was  under  hurried  discussion,  “ In  violation 
of  the  treaty  we  expressly  provide  that  these  people  shall  only 


13 


have  the  right  to  remain  here  upon  applying  on  certain  terms  and 
conditions,  for  a certificate;  they  are  ticket-of-leave  men.” 

The  question  of  the  observance  or  non-observance  of  our 
treaties  may  be  regarded  as  insignificant  to  an  American  at 
home ; but  to  an  American  in  China  it  is  a vital  and  supreme 
question.  China  at  the  outset  neither  cared  to  open  her  doors 
to  foreigners,  or  to  permit  her  own  people  to  migrate  to  other 
lands.  She  wanted  to  be  left  alone.  Western  powers,  and 
America  among  the  number,  advocated  the  principle  of  inter- 
national intercourse,  and  urged  China  to  make  treaties.  From 
that  time  to  the  present  treaty  rights,  treaty  privileges,  treaty 
observance,  has  been  the  one  thing  drummed  into  the  Chinese 
ears.  Every  question,  great  or  small,  has  been  pushed  in  China 
by  all  the  might  and  authority  of  the  treaty.  Again  and  again 
has  the  Chinese  Government  been  made  to  bend  to  this  new 
power  of  modern  civilization — Western  civilization.  Not  one 
iota  of  our  treaty  rights  have  we  proposed  to  yield.  And  not 
only  so,  but  every  treaty  with  China  contains  a “ favored  nation  ” 
clause,  whereby  all  the  rights,  privileges  and  favors  granted  to 
one  nation  shall  inure  to  the  benefit  of  another,  and  so  it  is  that 
many  favors  and  rights,  which  we  as  Americans  did  not  originally 
obtain  by  our  own  treaty,  have  since  accrued  to  us  by  being  first 
granted  to  others.  In  all  this  change  brought  about  in  China, 
America  has  never  been  backward.  What,  then,  shall  we  say  of 
our  own  violation  of  the  treaties  with  China?  Of  our  national 
legislature  carelessly  ignoring  our  treaty  stipulations,  and  adopt- 
ing the  narrow,  restrictive  policy,  which  China  held  for  hundreds 
of  years  ? I seem  to  hear  again  the  protest  of  that  grand  man. 
Dr.  Phillips  Brooks,  as  he  wrote  these  words  last  November  to 
the  large  mass-meeting  in  Tremont  Temple,  Boston,  “ The 
legislation  of  the  Chinese  Registration  Act  is  most  humiliating, 
and  demands  the  indignation  and  remonstrance  of  every  citizen 
who  cares  for  justice  and  his  country  and  humanity.” 

Secondly,  as  to  international  law.  There  is  a story  told  of 
the  Chinese  Prime  Minister,  Li  Hung-Chang,  during  a conversa- 
tion with  a former  United  States  Minister,  John  Russell  Young, 
asking  the  question  as  to  whether  he  could  point  out  that 
particular  paragraph  in  “Wheaton’s  International  Law”  wherein 
it  was  provided  that  a Hottentot  was  more  desirable  as  a resident 
than  a Chinaman.  We  as  Americans  may  well  feel  jealous  of 
any  harm  intended  to  international  law,  to  those  great  principles 
. which  our  forefathers  and  statesmen  have  always  cherished,  of 


14 


international  intercourse,  comity  and  courtesy.  The  three 
treatises  on  International  Law  by  Wheaton,  Woolsey  and 
Bluntschle,  have  all  been  translated  into  Chinese  for  the  Chinese 
Government  by  a learned  American,  Dr.  W.  A.  P.  Martin,  wha 
is  the  President  of  the  Imperial  University  in  Pekin  and  Pro- 
fessor of  International  Law.  The  Burlingame  Treaty  is  also 
especially  conspicuous  for  its  clear  enunciation  of  the  foundation 
principles  of  true  international  relationship.  Our  modern  legis- 
lation, at  least  on  the  Chinese  question,  falls  far  short  of  what 
we  have  taught  in  other  days.  Let  us  specify  a few  points. 

1.  Woolsey  in  his  “ International  Law  ” says  : “ No  nation 
through  its  public  documents,  or  by  its  official  persons,  can  with 
right  reflect  on  the  institutions  or  social  characteristics  of 
another,  or  make  individuous  comparison  to  its  disadvantage,, 
or  set  forth  in  any  way  an  opinion  of  its  inferiority.”  This 
principle,  it  seems  to  me,  has  been  glaringly  violated  by  this 
Bill  of  Chinese  Exclusion  and  Registration,  making  certain 
uncomplimentary  regulations  for  certain  foreigners  ; ist,  because 
they  are  Chinese,  and  2nd,  because  they  are  laborers.  That 
venerable  and  distinguished  statesman  of  Massachusetts,  Senator 
Hoar,  has  said  : “These  measures  not  only  violate  our  treaty 
engagement  with  a friendly  nation,  but  they  violate  the  princi- 
ples upon  which  the  American  Republic  rests,  striking  not  at 
crime,  not  even  at  pauperism,  but  striking  at  human  beings  be- 
cause of  their  race,  and  at  laboring  men  because  they  are 
laborers.”  The  act  as  passed  again  and  again  refers  to  “ any 
Chinese  person  or  persons  of  Chinese  descent,”  making  no  dis- 
tinction between  those  Chinese  who  are  Chinese  subjects  and 
those  who  by  birth  are  the  subjects  of  some  other  country,  as  of 
Great  Britain  on  the  island  of  Hong-Kong,  or  even  those  who 
by  birth  are  now  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  That  man- 
is  a marked  man  who  has  Chinese  blood  in  his  veins,  no  matter 
the  government  to  which  he  may  now  be  subject.  As  an  English 
journalist  in  China  has  said,  “ It  is  obvious  that  no  European 
country  would  learn  with  equanimity  of  the  passage  of  a law 
singling  out  its  nationals  for  penal  legislation.” 

2.  Sir  Robert  Fillimore  has  deduced  from  the  principle  of 
equality  the  right  of  a government  to  protect  its  subjects  resident 
in  other  countries,  and  it  may  be  laid  down  that  a state  has  cause 
of  complaint  if  its  subjects  in  foreign  countries  are  denied 
ordinary  justice.  The  large  portion  of  the  Chinese  in  the 
United  States  are  still  the  subjects  of  China,  and  China, 


15 

therefore,  has  a right  to  complaint  at  the  partiality  of  treatment 
meted  out  to  her  people. 

3.  International  comity  is  another  duty  of  nations.  It 
embraces,  says  Woolsey,  “ not  only  that  kindness  which 
emanates  from  friendly  feeling,  but  also  those  tokens  of  respect 
which  are  due  between  nations  on  the  ground  of  right.”  This 
principle  of  comity  has  been  infringed  by  the  insult  not  only  to 
the  Chinese  laborers,  but  the  greater  international  question  of 
insult  to  the  Chinese  government,  passing  a law  against  certain 
subjects  of  China  without  regard  to  the  national  feelings  of 
China. 

4.  International  intercourse  by  means  of  international 

conference  is  the  essence  of  international  law  and  the  making  of 
treaties.  Hence  it  is  that  China  was  induced  during  the  Bur- 
lingame era  of  friendliness  to  begin  the  policy  of  sending 
ministers  and  consuls  to  foreign  governments,  as  well  as  receive 
those  from  other  countries.  Hence  it  was  that  earlier  in  its 
history,  but  by  advice  of  foreigners,  China  formed  a new  office  to 
deal  with  and  consult  about  foreign  affairs.  The  right  of 
conference  on  matters  pertaining  to  more  than  one  country  is  too 
axiomatic  to  meet  any  defense.  And  yet  in  1888,  when  the 
foreign  office  at  Pekin  asked  for  further  discussion  of  the  treaty 
made  that  year  between  the  two  countries  but  not  yet  ratified. 
President  Cleveland  deemed  it  best  to  refuse  that  request,  but 
signed  the  act  of  congress  which  placed  greater  restrictions  on 
the  Chinese  than  even  the  new  treaty  under  discussion  had 
defined.  It  was  independent  action  rather  than  the  conference 
of  two  contracting  parties.  As  to  the  act  of  1892  Woolsey’s 
words  may  apply : ‘‘  No  state  can  exclude  the  properly 

documented  subjects  of  another  friendly  state,  or  send  them 
away  after  they  have  been  once  admitted  without  definite 
reasons,  which  must  be  submitted  to  the  foreign  government 
£oncernedr 

5.  It  is  a principle  of  international  law  that  treaties  are  a 

part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  subject  only  to  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution,  and  that  they  are  binding  on  the 
contracting  parties  from  the  day  of  their  date.  Woolsey  in  his 
“ International  Law  ” says : “ National  contracts  are  even  more 

solemn  and  sacred  than  private  ones  on  account  of  the  great 
interests  involved,  of  the  deliberateness  with  which  the 
obligations  are  assumed,  of  the  permanence  and  generality  of  the 
obligations,  and  of  each  nation’s  calling  under  God  to  be  a 


i6 


teacher  of  right  to  all  within  and  without  its  borders.”  The 
opinion  of  a former  attorney-general  is  cited  by  the  state 
department  as  follows : “Not  to  observe  a treaty  is  to  violate  a 
deliberate  and  express  engagement  and  afford  good  cause  of  war. 
When  congress  takes  upon  itself  to  disregard  the  provisions  of 
any  foreign  treaty  it  of  course  infringes  the  same  in  the  exercise 
of  sovereign  right,  and  voluntarily  accepts  the  causus  belli." 
Such  is  the  state,  then,  in  which  we  find  ourselves  placed  as  a 
nation  by  congress,  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  right,  passing 
the  two  bills  of  1888  and  1892.  Our  treaties  with  China  are 
broken,  and  thereby  one  principle  at  least  of  international  law  is 
trampled  upon. 

In  my  younger  days  of  studying  international  law  I learned 
all  this,  but  only  of  late  and  as  a result  of  studying  this  Chinese 
question,  have  I learned  of  a modifying  principle.  Though  it 
makes  law  rather  too  complex  for  an  unprofessional  mind  it  is 
still  our  duty  to  state  it  as  it  is.  The  Supreme  court,  in  rendering 
its  decision  in  1889  on  the  Scott  bill  of  1888.  said  : “ Although 

it^must  be  conceded  that  the  act  is  in  contravention  of  express 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1868  and  of  the  supplementary 
treaty  of  1880,  it  is  not  on  that  account  invalid  or  to  be  restricted 
in  its  enforcement.  By  the  constitution  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof  and  treaties  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  are  both  declared  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  and 
no  paramount  authority  is  given  to  one  over  the  other.  In 
either  case  the  last  expression  of  the  sovereign  will  must 
control.”  So  Attorney-General  Crittenden,  in  an  opinion  on 
certain  legislation  conflicting  with  the  treaty  of  1819  with  Spain, 
held  that  “ an  act  of  Congress  is  as  much  a supreme  law  of  the 
land  as  a treaty.  They  are  placed  on  the  same  footing,  and  no 
superiority  is  to  be  given  to  the  one  over  the  other.  The  last 
expression  of  the  law-giving  power  must  prevail,  and  a subsequent 
act  must  prevail  and  have  effect,  though  inconsistent  with  a prior 
act ; so  must  an  act  of  Congress  have  effect,  though  inconsistent 
with  a prior  treaty.” 

It  is  not  for  one  like  me  to  argue  this  meaning  of  the  law.  I 
merely  take  it  for  granted  as  the  right  and  supreme  decision. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  three  things  should  be  noted  if  a 
subsequent  act  of  Congress  is  to  prevail  over  a prior  treaty,  and 
what  I here  say  is  also  based  on  the  Supreme  court  : First, 
according  to  another  decision  of  the  Supreme  court,  if  Congress 
may  nullify  a treaty  with  a foreign  power,  the  nullification  must 


17 


be  express  and  not  by  implication.  But  thus  far  neither  Congress 
nor  the  Executive  has  either  expressly  or  impliedly  abrogated  the 
treaty  with  China.  And  hence  the  treaty  is  still  in  force  and  not 
the  subsequent  act  of  Congress.  Secondly,  an  act  of  Congress  can 
not  pass  as  law  and  abrogate  a prior  treaty  if  it  is  arbitrary  and 
unjust,  and  as  the  Supreme  court  has  also  adjudged,  “ arbitrary 
power,  enforcing  its  edicts  to  the  injury  of  the  persons  and 
property  of  its  subjects,  is  not  law,  whether  manifested  as  the 
decree  of  a personal  monarch  or  an  impersonal  multitude.’' 
Thirdly,  as  according  to  the  constitution,  article  6,  clause  2,  all 
treaties,  as  well  as  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  so  any  law  which  maybe 
proved  unconstitutional  can  not  prevail  over  a prior  treaty.  As 
the  clause  enjoins  the  law  must  be  “in  pursuance’’  of  the 
constitution  to  “ be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.”  And  this  is 
what  the  Chinese,  under  advice  of  competent  attorneys,  are 
wishing  to  test — viz.:  whether  the  act  of  1892  is  constitutional 
and  binding  or  not.  For  this  reason  the  mass  of  the  Chinese  in 
the  United  States  are  ignoring  the  regulations  of  that  act,  and 
what  the  Six  Companies,  by  advice  of  their  lawyers,  have  said 
seems  to  me  true.  “ Our  attention,’’  they  say,  “ has  not  been 
called  to  any  law  which  makes  it  a crime  for  us  to  advise  our 
fellow-subjects  that  they  have  a right  to  disregard  a law  which  is 
in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  treaties.” 

But,  whatever  the  outcome,  this  much  is  clear,  that  it  is  a 
lamentable  caricature  on  our  American  civilization  that  our 
national  government  shall  even  desire  to  pass  a law  which  may 
break  the  treaties  and  the  principles  of  international  intercourse, 
would  it  not  be  better,  would  it  not  be  a sounder  and  more 
honorable  policy,  to  seek  the  path  of  harmony,  either  by  chang- 
ing the  law  or  revising  the  treaty,  so  that  the  law  shall  be  in 
harmony  with  the  treaty,  in  accord  with  international  law,  and  in 
pursuance  of  the  constitution  ? 

Thirdly,  now,  as  to  constitutional  law.  The  points  to  be 
advanced  are  as  follows  : 

I.  The  second,  third  and  fourth  sections  of  the  act  refer  not 
only  to  “ any  Chinese  person,”  but  to  any  “person  of  Chinese 
descent,”  thus  including  under  the  restrictions  enacted  persons 
born  in  the  United  States.  Such  a law  is  in  violation  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  and  first  clause,  which  states  “ all  per- 
sons born  in  the  United  States  are  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  of  the  state  wherein  they  reside,”  and  which  then  adds,  “nor 


i8 


shall  any  state  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty  or  property 
without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.” 

2.  The  whole  drift  of  the  act  is  the  restriction  of  those  who 
are  the  subjects  of  China,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  but  not  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  But  such 
restriction  applied  only  to  a few  and  not  to  all,  violates  the  same 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  which  clearly  guarantees  that  no  state 
shall  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty  or  property:  without  due 
process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the 
equal  protection  of  the  laws.”  Thus  all  Chinese  residing  in  the 
United  States  are  citizens  de  facto,  though  not  de  jure  of  the 
United  States,  and  are  guaranteed  by  the  constitution  an  equal 
protection  with  all  other  citizens.  By  the  Civil  Rights  Act, 
Congress  itself  has  declared  that  '■'‘all  persons  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  same  right  in  every 
state  and  territory,  to  make  and  enforce  contracts,  to  sue,  be 
parties,  give  evidence,  and  to  the  full  and  equal  benefit  of  all  laws 
and  proceedings  for  the  security  of  persons  and  property  as  is 
enjoyed  by  white  citizens,  and  shall  be  subject  to  like  punish- 
ment, pains,  penalties,  taxes,  licenses,  and  exactions  of  every 
VimA,  zVid.  no  other."  How  flagrantly  this  Act  of  Civil  Rights  is 
trampled  upon  by  the  Act  of  Chinese  Exclusion  and  Chinese 
Registration. 

3.  The  act,  while  relating  mainly  to  Chinese  laborers,  yet  by 
making  it  so  easy  for  them  to  be  arrested  may  also  work  harm 
and  hardship  to  the  Chinese  merchants,  for  it  really  places  on 
them  the  onus  of  proof  that  they  are  not  laborers,  and  so  need  no 
certificate  of  identification  and  residence.  If  this  be  the  case, 
the  same  Fourteenth  Amendment  will  therein  be  violated. 

4.  In  Sec.  3 of  this  act  it  is  declared  that  ‘‘any  Chinese 
person  or  persons  of  Chinese  descent  arrested  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the 
United  States,  unless  such  person  shall  establish,  by  afifirmative 
proof,  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  justice,  judge  or  commissioner, 
his  lawful  right  to  remain  in  the  United  States.”  By  this  it  is 
only  provided  that  the  man  already  adjudged  guilty  shall  estab- 
lish his  innocence  by  affirmative  proof,  thus  violating  the  Sixth 
Amendment,  which  says,  “ In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the 
accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an 
impartial  jury  of  the  state  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall 
have  been  committed,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and 


19 


cause  of  the  accusation;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses 
against  him;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses 
in  his  favor;  and  to  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense.” 
But  none  of  these  constitutional  rights  are  provided  for  in  this 
section  or  any  other  section,  during  the  proposed  trial  of  the 
Chinese  laborer.  Contrary  to  all  sense  of  justice  the  Chinaman 
is  adjudged  guilty,  until  proved  innocent,  and  this,  too,  in  spite 
of  section  6 in  the  act,  which  describes  him  as  “entitled  to 
remain  in  the  United  States.” 

5.  Sections  2,  4 and  6 enjoin  deportation  as  a penalty  for 
failure  to  observe  the  Bill,  and  section  7 states  in  full  that  such 
a person  shall  be  imprisoned  at  hard  labor  for  a period  not 
exceeding  one  year,  and  thereafter  removed  from  the  United 
States.  This  order,  however,  conflicts  with  the  Eighth  Amend- 
ment which  decrees  that  “ cruel  and  unusual  punishment  ” shall 
not  be  inflicted.  We  have  heard  of  the  Chinese  Emperor  banish- 
ing his  subjects  to  Hi,  and  the  Russian  Czar  to  Siberia,  but  never 
before  was  it  decreed  in  the  United  States  that  banishment  was 
to  be  made  a penalty  of  the  law.  It  is  “ unusual  ” and  so 
illegal.  And  remember  that  the  persons  thus  misused  are  not 
Chinese  laborers  trying  to  enter  our  territory,  but  those  who  are 
already  here  and  reside  here. 

6.  Section  5 of  the  act  has  reference  to  “ a Chinese  person 

seeking  to  land  in  the  United  States,  to  whom  that  privilege  has 
been  denied,”  and  it  decrees  that  on  his  making  “an  application 
for  a writ  of  habeas  corpus  no  bail  shall  be  allowed.”  This  law 
is  meant  to  help  in  the  execution  rather  of  the  Scott  bill  of  1888,. 
than  the  Geary  bill  of  1892,  the  bill  which  prohibited  Chinese 
laborers  to  re-enter  our  borders.  But  even  so  it  violates  the 
eighth  amendment,  which  implies  that  bail  may  be  allowed,  and 
the  second  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
constitution;  which  expressly  declares ; “ The  privilege  of  the 

writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended.” 

7.  Section  6 of  the  act  has  a variety  of  absurdities,  all  of 
which  need  to  be  specified.  It  says  among  other  things  that 
“ any  Chinese  laborer  without  such  certificate  of  residence  shall 
be  deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United 

\ States,  and  may  be  arrested  * -s-  * taken  before  a 

United  States  judge,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  order  that  he  be 
deported  from  the  United  States  unless  he  shall  establish  clearly 
to  the  satisfaction  of  said  judge  that  by  reason  of  accident, 
sickness  or  other  unavoidable  cause  he  has  been  unable  to 


20 


procure  his  certificate.”  Reading  carefully  this  new  statute  it 
will  be  noticed  that  there  is  no  indictment  of  a grand  jury,  no 
process  of  law,  no  trial  by  an  impartial  jury,  and  no  counsel  to 
defend.  It  thus  breaks  the  sixth  amendment,  which  we  quoted 
above,  and  also  the  fifth  amendment,  which  declares  that  “ no 
person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a capital  or  otherwise  infamous 
crime  unless  on  a presentment  or  indictment  of  a grand  jury 
* * nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  due 

process  of  law.”  Also  section  2,  clause  3,  of  the  third  article, 
which  reads,  “ The  trial  of  all  crimes  shall  be  by  jury.”  For 
Congress  to  pass  a bill,  containing  all  the  specifications  of  this  one, 
and  yet  failing  to  include  those  which  are  constitutional,  is  by  no 
means  a high  standard  to  be  displayed  to  the  world,  and 
especially  to  China. 

8.  By  the  same  section  it  is  enjoined  that  “ the  Chinese 
laborer  arrested  but  who  desires  to  procure  a certificate  must 
have  the  affidavit  of  at  least  one  credible  white  witness,  that  he 
was  a resident  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
this  act,”  but  this  is  contrary  to  the  fourteenth  amendment  in 
that  the  same  exaction  is  not  required  of  others,  and  so  causes  a 
Chinese  laborer  to  be  deprived  of  his  liberty,  and  to  be  denied 
“ the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.”  It  might  be  possible  for  him 
to  secure  a yellow  or  black  witness  but  not  a white,  and  yet  on 
pain  of  failure  he  will  be  unable  to  prove  his  case  “ to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  court.” 

9.  The  same  section  declares  that  after  the  court  has  been 
satisfied  of  the  Chinese  laborer’s  right  a certificate  “ shall  be 
granted  upon  his  paying  the  cost,”  i.  e.,  upon  his  paying  a 
capitation  tax,  but  article  i,  section  9,  clause  4,  of  the  constitution 
declares  that  “ no  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid.” 

10.  According  to  this  section  6 a Chinese  laborer  will  be 
“ deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United 
States”  if  he  is  “ without  such  certificate  of  residence,”  but  this 
exaction  is  required  of  no  one  else,  and  with  all  the  other 
specifications  may  greatly  injure  his  liberty  and  property, 
another  violation  of  the  fourteenth  amendment. 

11.  By  this  section  a “ United  States  customs  official 
collector  of  internal  revenue,  or  his  deputies.  United  States 
marshal,  or  his  deputies”  have  the  power  to  adjudge,  or  in  other 
words,  are  given  judicial  power,  while  the  United  States  judge 
has  an  executive  power,  “whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  order  that” 
the  Chinese  laborer  thus  “ adjudged  to  be  unlawfully  within  the 


21 


United  States  be  deported  from  the  United  States.”  This 
violates  the  sixth  amendment  which  guarantees  “ trial  by  an 
impartial  jury  of  the  state  and  district.”  The  one  recognizes  a 
national  authority  and  the  other  a state ; the  one  action  may 
prove  arbitrary,  but  the  other  guarantees  a fair  trial  of  one’s 
compeers. 

12.  When  we  consider  the  “ regulations  ” of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  as  enjoined  by  Congress,  such  as  requiring  “ three 
unmounted  photographs,”  and  giving  “ the  collector  or  his  depu- 
ties ” the  power  to  decide  on  the  “ correctness  of  the  photo- 
graph,” and  finally  commanding  “two  credible  witnesses  of  good 
character  ” to  make  the  prescribed  affidavits — a very  difficult  task 
for  the  majority  of  Chinese  laborers,  if  such  a witness  must  be  a 
white  man — we  gain  another  and  complete  evidence  as  to  how 
that  grand  declaration  of  the  constitution,  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  has  been  and  probably  will  be  violated  by  the 
action  of  our  United  States  government,  depriving  the  Chinese 
laborers  of  their  “liberty  ” and  denying  them  the  “ equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws.” 

These  seven  points  on  treaty-law,  five  points  on  international 
law  and  a dozen  points  on  constitutional  law,  are  sufficient  of 
themselves  and  needing  no  further  comment  to  convince  every 
calm,  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  mind  that  this  act  of  Congress, 
apparently  unimportant  and  to  many  uninteresting,  has  cast  a 
shadow  over  our  nation’s  rectitude  and  civilization  which  years 
of  honorable  diplomacy  and  international  comity  and  all  the 
glory  of  our  Columbian  Exposition  will  find  hard  to  scatter  by 
all  the  brightness  of  their  achievements. 

Having  spent  so  much  time  on  the  legal  aspects  of  our  legis- 
lation— the  harm  done  to  our  American  sense  of  justice — there 
must  be  and  also  need  be  less  discussion  of  the  other  bearings  of 
the  question,  the  harm  done  to  American  influence,  commerce 
and  missions  in  China.  We,  therefore,  proceed  at  once  to  the 
next  point. 

III.  The  harm  done  by  our  legislation  to  American  mfluence 
in  China.  A certain  sturdy  countryman  of  the  Yorkshire 
regions  quietly  inquired  of  a comrade  : “ I say.  Bill,  who  is  that 
chap  yonder ” “Don’t  know  him.”  “Well  then  ’eave  ’arf  a 
brick  at  him.”  This  forcible  method  of  creating  an  influence  has 
lately  become  our  policy  in  dealing  with  Chinese,  and  even  those 
who  are  the  guests  of  our  country.  We  erect  a pedestal  much 
like  the  tower  of  Babel  and  on  it  inscribed  “ the  liberty  of  man, 


22 


woman  and  child,”  and  then  we  knock  down  half  of  the  under- 
pinning and  leave  the  pedestal  all  aslant  and  ready  to  tumble 
by  our  drastic  measures  of  Chinese  exclusion.  Both  the  build- 
ing of  the  tower  and  the  process  of  knocking  it  down  seem  to  me 
to  be  extreme  measures,  but  at  opposite  ends,  not  exactly  what 
we  wanted  for  the  safe  guidance  of  a popular  government.  At 
one  moment  we  shout  till  we  are  hoarse,  “ Free  entrance  to  all 
the  world,”  and  the  next  we  hear  the  door  groan  on  its  hinges 
and  ready  to  slam  in  the  face  of  the  Orient,  first  China,  then 
Japan,  and  by  and  by  the  Asiatics  on  the  Hawaiian  islands. 

Every  sound  system  of  government  must  be  molded  by 
modifying  checks.  And  so  we  have  state  rights  and  national 
authority,  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  departments, 
each  one  helping  and  each  one  checking  the  other.  Even  a good 
principle  needs  limitation  ; even  love  needs  to  be  guided.  For 
our  young  republic  to  make  liberty  one  of  its  battle-cries — the 
pole-star  of  the  nation — was  a sound  policy,  full  of  inspiration  ; 
but  liberty  unchecked  is  license,  while  liberty  regulated  means 
restriction  ; even  the  pole-star  must  find  its  place  in  the  universe 
of  revolving  planets  and  shining  stars.  Free  immigration, 
therefore,  demands  restrictions,  but  restrictions  which  are  applied 
to  a few  merely  because  of  race,  class  of  nation,  and  not  on  the 
basis  of  character  or  worth,  strikes  at  the  principle  of  equality 
and  generates  discord  and  animosity  with  that  race,  class  or 
nation.  Influence,  however  promising,  is  at  once  and  inevitably 
nullified,  and  this  and  no  other  will  be  the  result  in  China,  if  this 
bill  of  extreme  restrictions  against  Chinese  laborers  shall  be  cai- 
ried  into  effect  by  the  Executive  of  our  nation. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  exaggerate  in  the  least  American  influ- 
ence in  China.  I have  already  shown  what  it  has  been  through 
our  diplomatic  agents  who  have  represented  our  government  in 
China,  and  I gladly  testify  in  this  public  way  the  appreciation 
entertained  by  all  American  residents  in  China  for  the  friendly, 
energetic  and  judicious  ministry  of  Col.  Charles  Denly,  who,  for 
these  eight  years  of  changing  complications,  has  still  maintained 
with  the  foreign  office  in  Pekin  their  united  respect  and  good 
wishes. 

The  first  foreigner  employed  by  the  Chinese  Government  to 
examine  the  mineral  resources  of  that  land  was  a competent 
mining  engineer  from  our  own  country,  recommended  by  the 
Hon.  Mr.  Burlingame.  Another  man,  and  that,  too,  a black 
man,  attached  to  the  Burlingame  embassy,  was  afterwards 


23 


retained  as  private  adviser  in  the  Chinese  service  until  his  death 
some  two  years  ago.  It  was  a large  American  firm  which  started 
and  helped  the  Chinese  in  forming  its  first  steamship  company, 
and  during  the  hostilities  with  France  in  1884  all  these  steamers 
were  transferred  to  this  American  firm  and  placed  under  the 
American  flag.  Other  Americans  have  been  employed  in  the 
mining  speculations  in  China ; several  hold  prominent  positions 
in  the  Imperial  Customs  service  under  the  lead  of  an  able 
Englishman,  Sir  Robert  Hart;  and  another,  who  is  our  Vice- 
Consul  to  Tientsin,  has  been  private  adviser  to  the  Premier, 
Li  Hung-Chang,  for  many  years,  and  at  this  time  is  the  head 
manager  of  the  Imperial  Railway  in  the  North.  One  of  the  first 
efforts  to  teach  the  Chinese  the  English  language  and  Western 
science  was  the  Morrison  Education  Society,  the  instruction  of 
which  was  given  by  that  lovable  and  popular  man.  Rev.  S.  R. 
Brown,  and  whose  pupils  have  occupied  high  positions  in  the 
Chinese  Government.  The  Imperial  College,  which  was  started 
and  supported  by  the  Emperor,  for  teaching  the  Western 
languages  and  the  sciences,  has  been  from  the  beginning  under 
the  charge  of  a distinguished  American  scholar  and  Chinese 
scholar,  the  Rev.  W.  A.  P.  Martin,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  a man 
furthermore,  from  his  position,  whose  advice  is  frequently  sought 
after  in  the  difficult  international  questions  which  troubled  the 
Chinese  Government.  Also  a few  years  ago,  when  120  Chinese 
lads  were  sent  abroad  to  be  educated,  it  was  in  our  American 
institutions  and  at  first  under  the  care  of  Young  Wing,  a 
graduate  with  honor  and  as  prize-man  of  Yale  College.  In  the 
same  connection  it  should  also  be  noted  and  appreciated  that 
the  body  of  American  missionaries,  though  a small  number  in 
comparison  with  the  citizens  of  California,  all  of  them  hold  posi- 
tions of  wide  and  beneficial  influence,  especially  the  leaders  of 
the  educational  institutions,  our  physicians  and  a few  others  who 
are  seeking  an  extended  influence  with  the  influential  men  of 
China.  Through  these  few  men  the  name  of  America  has  be- 
come known  and  re.spected  among  thousands  of  people  in  that 
vast  and  ancient  Empire. 

The  influence  thus  described  has  been  one  of  friendliness. 
If  not  the  chief,  at  least  America  is  one  of  the  five  great  powers 
influencing  the  Chinese  Government  to-day  in  its  slow  but 
onward  march  of  development  and  prosperity.  Shall  it  be  that 
at  this  critical  period  in  China,  and  after  years  of  effort,  prayer 
and  planning  by  our  fellow-countrymen,  this  sphere  of  influence 


24 


shall  be  cancelled,  and  those  who  are  our  foes  at  home  shall 
increase  the  number  of  our  foes  abroad  ? 

The  governments  of  Europe  always  give  supreme  attention 
to  what  is  called  the  foreign  policy.  Great  Britain,  France, 
Germany  and  Russia  watch  with  jealous  eyes  this  foreign  policy 
as  related  to  China.  And  where  now  is  the  United  States? 
Shall  we  purchase  Alaska,  annex  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  dream  of 
the  annexation  of  Canada,  Mexico,  Cuba  and  other  spots, 
desirable  and  undesirable,  and  fling  aloft  the  new  banner  of 
reciprocity,  while  turning  toward  the  Orient,  with  absurd  fears 
in  our  hearts  and  a “ slight  misunderstanding,”  we  grate  our 
teeth  and  hurl  defiance  and  bolt  forever  that  splendid  work  of 
the  Creator — the  Golden  Gate  ? 

IV.  Another  bearing  of  this  Act  of  Chinese  Exclusion  is  the 
harm  done  to  American  commerce  in  China.  In  approaching 
this  element  of  the  problem,  I confess  a certain  feeling  of  in- 
difference— much  like  our  good  people  at  home  towards  the 
whole  Chinese  question.  Living  for  ten  years  amid  the  Chinese 
people,  witnessing  almost  daily  the  extreme  poverty  of  the 
multitude,  participating  in  famine-relief  a-  few  years  ago,  when 
foreigners  contributed  to  a fund  of  over  $300,000,  and  remem- 
bering how  foreigners  some  ten  years  ago  raised  over  $200,000 
for  another  famine,  my  main  desire  has  naturally  been  to  think 
of  a remedy  to  relieve  the  distressed  of  China  and  minimize 
their  poverty.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  what  was  needed  more 
than  foreign  machinery  was  some  cheap,  simple  utensil,  which 
could  help  the  poor  to  earn  a livelihood,  than  help  the  rich  to 
become  richer.  In  other  words,  my  sympathies  have  been  stirred 
for  the  Chinese  laborers,  just  as  they  would  be  at  home  for  the 
struggling  working  classes.  Hence  I was  pleased  to  hear  from  a 
Chinese  official  just  before  my  departure  from  China,  that  he  and 
others  were  introducing  a simple  kind  of  loom  from  Japan  into 
his  native  province  in  the  South,  whereby  the  poor  could  make 
a little  more  money.  With  these  simple  looms  cotton  yarn  has 
come  into  the  market,  and  last  year  it  was  reckoned  that  the 
import  into  China  of  cotton  yarn,  ninety  per  cent,  of  which  came 
from  India,  amounted  to  1,000  tons. 

But  what  is  the  effect  of  this  on  American  trade?  For  the 
most  part,  bad.  Owing  to  the  increased  sale  of  cotton  yarn, 
cotton  piece  goods  have  declined,  while  American  yarn  is  unable 
to  compete  with  Indian  yarn.  For  all  this  I have  no  tears  to 
shed.  I rejoice  greatly  in  these  charitable  undertakings  to  benefit 


25 


the  poor  of  China,  as  well  as  all  other  schemes  for  helping  the 
poor  the  world  over.  American  business  men  and  capitalists 
must  take  their  chances  in  competing  in  the  markets  of  the 
world. 

True  as  all  this  is,  there  is  no  reason  why  America  may  not 
out-bid  other  nations  in  selling  those  commodities  which  China 
wants,  and  buy  those  commodities  of  China  which  we  in  America 
want.  There  is  the  same  open  door  for  Americans  to  enter  for 
selling  such  things  as  China  needs  in  her  mining,  railway,  steam- 
ship and  war  equipments.  I do  not  say  the  trade  is  large,  but 
let  our  legislators,  if  they  can  do  nothing  to  help,  at  least  refrain 
from  utterly  destroying  our  trade  relations  with  China.  If  we 
can  sell  better  goods  at  cheaper  rates  than  any  other  people,  the 
Chinese,  of  course,  will  not  hesitate  to  buy,  whatever  our  legisla- 
tion against  the  Chinese,  but  all  things  being  equal,  the  Chinese 
government  at  least  will  give  the  preference  to  a friendly  people, 
that  is  all. 

In  crossing  the  continent,  I was  talking  on  the  train  with  a 
wealth)'  German,  who  did  business  and  made  his  fortune  in 
Denver.  Referring  to  the  Chinese  question,  and  supposing  I 
was  only  a “ globe-trotter,”  he  said  : “ We  can’t  change  our  legis- 
lation against  the  Chinese  for  any  Americans  in  China.  There 
are  only  a few  business  men  there  anyway,  and  they  don’t 
amount  to  anything,  while  all  the  rest  are  those  fools,  the  mis- 
sionaries, who  carry  away  all  the  gifts  of  the  churches  out  to 
China.’’  Translated  into  other  words,  it  merely  means,  every 
man  for  himself  and  let  the  rest  go,  or  like  the  darkey,  who,  try- 
ing to  quote  the  sentence,  “ Every  man  for  himself  and  God  for 
us  all,”  said  instead,  “ Every  man  for  himself  and  God  for  him- 
self.” While  it  is  a true  saying  that  every  government  is  of  the 
Lord,  there  are  plenty  of  persons  these  days  willing  to  take  the 
job  off  the  Lord’s  hands,  and  run  things  to  suit  themselves. 

I have  noticed  lately  a new  kind  of  foreign  policy  springing 
up  in  our  midst.  When  the  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
was  first  broached,  certain  persons  were  found  opposing  it  be- 
cause of  its  benefits  to  American  capitalists  living  there.  It  is, 
no  dcubt,  the  feeling  that  the  only  way  to  help  the  workingmen 
is  to  overturn  the  capitalists,  and  that  this  country  and  all  our 
legislation  must  tend  that  way,  or  the  immigrants  from  Europe 
will  resist,  much  like  the  celebrated  Miss  Maloney,  who  was  heard 
to  remark,  on  the  appearance  of  a Chinese  servant : “ To  think 
o’  me  toilin’  like  a nagur  for  the  six  years  I’ve  been  in  Ameriky — 


26 


bad  luck  to  the  day  Oi  iver  left  the  owld  counthry  to  be  bate  by 
the  likes  o’  them — and  it  is  misel,  with  five  good  characters 
from  five  respectable  places,  to  be  herdin’  wid’  the  hay thens  ?” 

On  this  side  issue  I wish  to  say  this  much,  that  many 
schemes  of  capitalists,  such  as  building  the  Central  and  Union 
Pacific  Railroad,  and  reclaiming  the  swamp  lands  of  California, 
had  I eeded  for  their  speedier  completion  Chinese  labor;  and 
these  schemes  being  more  quickly  completed,  have  supplied  the 
sooner  spheres  of  usefulness  for  the  laborers  from  Europe.  It  is 
not  altogether  true  that  because  work  is  given  the  Chinese 
laborer,  he  and  the  millionaire  are  benefited,  while  the  white 
laborers  are  left  to  starvation.  There  is  such  a thing  as  mutual 
benefit. 

But  this  is  not  the  question  at  issue.  Even  according  to 
treaty  there  was  no  talk  of  admitting  other  Chinese  laborers  to 
the  United  States  than  those  already  here;  but  the  legislation 
goes  beyond  treaty  and  enjoins  certain  exaction  of  Chinese 
laborers,  already  living  within  our  territory,  such  as  are  required 
of  no  one  else.  As  Mr.  Garrison  said,  in  Tremont  Temple : 
“ This  is  no  question  of  a single  race  or  color.  Yesterday  it 
was  the  negro,  to-day  it  is  the  Chinaman,  to-morrow  it  may  be 
the  white  American  : 

“We  but  teach 

Bloody  instractions,  which  being  taught,  return 
To  plague  the  inventor  : this  even-handed  Justice 
Commends  the  ingredients  of  our  poisoned  chalice 
To  our  own  lips.” 


V.  The  fifth  and  last  aspect  of  the  question  is  the  harm 
done  to  our  missionary  work  in  China.  The  number  of  American 
citizens  in  China  are  second  on  the  list,  those  from  Great  Britain 
being  the  first.  The  number,  however,  is  a small  one,  being  a 
little  over  one  thousand,  both  men  and  women.  Of  this  number 
nearly  one-half  are  missionaries.  Small  though  the  number  may 
be,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  they  are  all  representative 
men  and  women  delegated  to  their  work  by  competent  religious 
bodies  at  home.  The  work  they  are  doing  is  also  a representative 
work,  representing  not  only  the  five  hundred  or  more  who  are  in 
China,  but  representing  the  Christian  sentiment  of  the  people  in 
America.  This  work  thus  organized  likewise  occupied,  as  we 
have  mentioned  above,  places  of  influence,  and  in  some  cases 
strategic  points  of  China.  Of  the  twenty-two  capitals  in  China 
and  everyone  a very  center  of  influence,  half  of  them  are  showing 


27 


to-day  the  beneficent  work  of  our  American  missionaries. 
Already  obstacles,  persecution  and  riots,  as  much  as  any  one 
should  desire,  beset  the  work  of  the  American  missionaries,  as 
well  as  those  from  other  lands,  and  need  no  additional  impetus 
from  the  reaction  in  China  of  our  legislation  at  home. 

Whether  the  bill  of  Chinese  Exclusion  will  impair  the  lives 
and  work  of  our  missionaries  in  China,  I regard  only  as  a minor 
matter.  The  main  question  is  one  of  justice  and  right.  Still 
the  question  of  security  or  peril  is  interesting  to  those  here,  as 
well  as  slightly  so  to  our  fellow-countrymen  in  China.  I will  not 
attempt  to  prophesy  wars,  bloodshed  or  martyrdom,  but  content 
myself  with  plain  facts. 

Let  us  first  suppose  that  the  Chinese  laborers,  the  Six  Com- 
panies and  their  American  attorneys,  succeed  in  carrying  a 
case  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  United  States,  and  obtain  the 
decision  that  the  bill  of  May,  1892,  is  unconstitutional.  This,  it 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  probable  result,  if  there  can  only  be  the 
chance  to  have  the  case  tried.  Under  such  circumstances  the 
effect  in  China  will  be  nothing  dangerous  or  startling,  but  none 
the  less  there  will  exist  in  many  a Chinaman’s  breast  ill-feeling 
and  estrangement,  and  the  suspicion  of  our  bad  intentions  rather 
than  a belief  that  we  Americans  are  all  so  good.  Furthermore, 
there  may  well  be  a ground  of  shame,  to  think  that  it  required  a 
band  of  plain  Chinese  laborers  and  laundrymen  to  bring  our  law- 
makers to  terms,  and  that  the  Chinese  in  New  York  should  have 
to  raise  $30,000  to  engage  competent  attorneys  like  Joseph  H. 
Choate  and  prove  before  the  national  Supreme  Court  that  the 
bill  passed  by  both  houses  of  Congress  and  signed  by  the 
President — good  Presbyterian  elder — is  null  and  void. 

Suppose,  however,  that  the  law  will  be  carried  into  effect 
next  May  by  orders  of  the  Executive,  and  we  shall  be  called 
upon  to  witness  a scene  similar  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from 
Russia,  or  their  ancestors  from  Egypt.  Or  suppose,  in  a milder 
way,  the  law  will  only  gradually  be  applied  for  the  next  six 
months,  all  through  the  world-wide  Exposition  at  Chicago,  on 
till  the  Supreme  Court  shall  meet  in  October,  and  then  decide 
that  the  law  is  constitutional;  what  then?  We  will  find  our- 
selves in  this  position : The  United  States  Congress  can  pass  a 
bill  abrogating  a treaty ; the  Chinese  Government  will  then  de- 
cide that  her  treaties  with  the  United  States  are  invalid,  and  that 
she,  too,  has  a right  to  make  laws  and  issue  orders  contrary  to 
the  treaties. 


28 


Already  something  of  this  kind  has  occurred.  According  to 
the  American  treaty  of  1880,  the  same  tonnage  dues  or  duties 
shall  be  granted  to  goods  carried  by  American  vessels  as  by  the 
Chinese.  Well,  last  autumn  the  Chinese  began  to  ship  grain  to 
Pekin  on  the  China  merchants  streams,  free  of  duty,  under  special 
permits  from  the  Chinese  authorities,  while  duty  was  still  charged 
to  the  grain  carried  on  English  steamers.  By  the  “ favored 
nation  ” clause,  the  same  favors  accrue  to  England  as  to  America, 
or  any  other  country.  Lord  Roseberry,  therefore,  made  a com- 
plaint to  Pekin  on  basis  of  our  treaty  of  1880.  The  Chinese 
government  replied  that  for  the  present  that  treaty  was  broken 
and  the  right  had  lapsed. 

This  same  kind  of  policy,  will  it  be  applied  to  missions  ? I 
do  not  say  what  China  will  do,  but  merely  what  she  has  a right 
to  do.  According  to  our  American  precedent,  in  its  strict  letter, 
American  “ laborers  ” in  China  might  be  restricted  and  prohibited, 
but  American  merchants  and  scholars  and  so  the  missionaries 
would  be  allowed  to  go  and  come  of  their  own  free  will.  But 
suppose  China  follows  the  spirit  of  the  precedent  and  not  the 
letter,  then  she  may  restrict  just  as  she  pleases  and  whomsoever 
she  pleases,  without  regard  to  treaty  or  the  wishes  and  protests 
of  the  American  government  and  people. 

In  America  the  undesirable  class,  it  is  assumed,  is  the 
Chinese  laborer.  In  China  the  undesirable  class,  {i.  e.) 
undesirable  class  to  the  Chinese  is  the  missionary.  Why  not 
prohibit  any  more  American  missionaries  from  going  to  China ; 
refuse  the  entrance  to  China  of  all  of  us  who  are  home  on  fur- 
lough and  place  a variety  of  restrictions  and  regulations  on  those 
already  there.  Of  course,  to  be  fair,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  the  Chinese  laborers  in  the  United  States  number,  let  us 
say,  80,000,  or  about  of  our  population,  while  on  the  same 
proportion,  the  number  of  “undesirable”  American  missionaries 
in  China  would  be  about  400,000,  instead  of  merely  500. 

But  why  not  restrict  those  who  are  there,  or  those  who  shall 
go  ? Why  not  regulate  all  the  missionaries  from  all  countries 
who  wish  to  evangelize  and  reside  in  China?  If  the  Chinese 
Emperor  can  issue  a decree  contrary  to  the  treaty,  {i.  e.)  if  this 
principle  shall  be  proved  to  be  true  law,  why  not  issue  a decree 
of  restriction  instead  of  a decree  of  toleration? 

All  the  missions  in  China,  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
must  face  the  same  problem.  Already  a variety  of  annoyances, 
hindrances  and  restrictions  exist,  and  it  may  be  China  will  add  a 


29 


few  more,  as  she  learns  new  lessons  from  our  United  States  gov- 
ernment. The  riots  against  the  missionary  organization  would 
naturally  induce  her  so  to  do. 

In  talking  with  a leading  man  in  the  Chinese  government, 
and  one  who  views  things  very  calmly,  he  expressed  the  fear  that 
the  masses  would  be  induced  by  our  treatment  to  obstruct  the 
missionaries  and  their  work,  and  make  it  hard  for  the  authorities 
to  protect.  My  only  fear  would  be  that  both  authorities  and  peo- 
ple will  hamper  the  missionary  work  as  never  before. 

The  American  treaties  with  China  have  had  no  article 
whereby  the  American  missionaries  could  live  elsewhere  than 
at  the  treaty  ports,  first  numbering  five  and  now  twenty-two. 
The  treaties,  however,  have  contained,  as  mentioned  above, 
the  “ favored  nation  ” clause.  In  i860,  when  France  was  making 
a treaty  with  China,  some  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priests 
managed  to  get  a clause  inserted  in  the  Chinese  text,  though  not 
in  the  French,  allowing  French  missionaries  to  purchase  property 
in  any  one  of  the  eighteen  provinces.  On  this  basis  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  backed  by  the  French  government,  has  suc- 
ceeded in  purchasing  property  and  residing  in  the  interior  of 
China,  and  by  this  privilege,  thus  granted,  Protestant  mission- 
aries, both  English  and  American,  have  demanded  an  equal 
privilege  and  gained  it.  If  now  the  United  States  can  abrogate 
on  true  principles  a definite  agreement  in  a treaty,  China  can 
abrogate  this  very  indefinite  clause  and  right,  and  hamper  instead 
of  favor  all  missionary  work  in  the  interior  of  China,  both 
Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic. 

Our  hope,  however,  is  that  China  will  do  better  than  the 
United  States,  and  that  while  our  own  government  may  be  less 
able  to  protect  us  in  China,  China  will  be  more  inclined  so  to 
protect,  as  she  learns  from  the  intrinsic  merit  of  the  missionary 
work  that  the  missionary  is  not  “ undesirable,”  but  desirable. 
Such  an  outcome  would  be  highly  advantageous  to  the  spiritual 
character  of  our  work,  freeing  it  from  the  suspicions  of  political 
design,  but  it  would  be  no  credit  to  the  United  States  or  Ameri- 
can interests. 

This  hope  of  ours  is  based  on  another  fact.  The  Chinese 
Government  can  easily  see  that  the  voice  of  the  religious 
organizations,  unless  we  except  our  friends  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  has  been  and  still  is  against  this  bill.  One  of  the  last 
efforts  was  made  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who 
through  an  important  committee  of  five  of  their  number 


30 


presented  their  request  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
the  Secretary  of  State.  The  President  listened  courteously,  but 
replied  that  he  did  not  see  how  he  could  do  anything,  as  he  had 
a law  to  execute.  But  why  this  law  ? Petitions  of  various 
Christian  bodies  were  sent  to  Congress  before  its  adjournment, 
and  all  the  missionary  societies  united  in  one  strong  representa- 
tive protest,  but  so  far  as  I have  seen  from  the  papers  Congress 
utterly  ignored  these  petitions  and  protests.  The  voice  of  our 
Christian  sentiment — of  justice,  good-will  and  magnanimity — 
must  speak  louder,  until  it  shall  include  the  laity  as  well  as  the 
clergy,  the  ruler  as  well  as  the  citizen. 

In  the  last  report  of  the  Committee  on  Immigration,  sub- 
mitted by  Senator  Chandler,  occurred  this  admirable  statement 
at  the  beginning  : “ The  Committee  on  Immigration  have  not  at 
any  time  been  guided  by  extreme  opinions  in  framing  any 
permanent  laws  which  they  have  recommended  ; but  their  policy 
has  been  to  accomplish  by  successive  and  moderate  steps  such 
legislation  as  would  gradually  overcome  defects  in  the  methods 
of  examining  immigrants,  and  would  also  make  the  rules 
excluding  undesirable  persons  more  rigid  and  effective,  in 
accordance  with  a widespread,  popular  demand  for  increased 
strictness,  without  unjustly  excluding  worthy  and  desirable 
immigrants.”  If  such  a policy  as  is  here  outlined  could  be  made 
the  policy  for  Chinese  immigration,  no  cause  of  complaint  could 
be  made  by  even  the  most  intense  of  Chinese  defenders.  The 
trouble,  however,  is  on  the  other  side,  with  the  Chinese  antag- 
onists. The  high  moral  and  just  standard  would  be  to  pass 
restrictive  measures  equally  on  all  undesirable  immigration  from 
all  nations,  discriminating  between  character  as  desirable  or 
undesirable  rather  than  races  or  nations.  By  the  laws  already 
in  force  many  of  the  Chinese  would  be  excluded,  such  as 
paupers,  persons  convicted  of  misdemeanor,  polygamists,  any 
person  whose  ticket  is  paid  for  by  another,  and  all  contract 
laborers.  By  the  bill  brought  forward  by  Senator  Chandler,  if 
only  equally  applied  to  the  Chinese,  others  would  be  excluded, 
such  as  those  who  cannot  read  or  write  with  reasonable  facility 
their  own  language,  and  persons  belonging  to  societies  which 
favor  or  justify  the  unlawful  destruction  of  property  or  life,  a 
fitting  regulation  to  keep  out  the  highbinders  of  China,  blood- 
thirsty and  cruel.  Other  restrictions  could  easily  be  made,  but 
the  principle  being  one  of  equal  fairness,  it  is  not  acceptable  to 
the  rabid  anti-Chinese  sentiment  of  the  Pacific  coast. 


31 


A lower  policy  is  to  restrict  the  Chinese  in  America  the  same 
as  China  restricts  Americans  in  her  territory,  and  a third  policy 
is  to  restrict  the  Chinese  in  every  way  possible,  but  secure  all 
possible  privileges  and  favors  for  the  Americans  residing  in 
China.  This  last  policy  is  the  one  of  the  government,  and  if  it 
be  continued,  we  only  advocate  not  independent  legislative  action 
without  regard  to  China,  but  respectful  consultation  and  the 
making  of  a new  treaty.  Not  till  the  people  of  America  learn 
anew  that  the  high  character  of  this  nation  in  the  past  has  been 
due  to  a devotion  to  principle,  to  justice  and  liberty,  and  to  the 
defeat  of  prejudice,  malevolence,  and  every  form  of  tyranny,  can 
we  hope  for  a right  understanding  and  fair  dealing  on  this 
Chinese  question. 

No  other  two  countries  can  be  found,  with  so  many  subjects 
of  the  one  living  in  the  other,  as  these  two,  China  and  the 
United  States,  over  i,ooo  Americans  in  China  and  still  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  over  100,000  Chinese  in  America  and 
still  the  subjects  of  China.  The  one  nation,  young,  active,  rich, 
enlightened  and  prosperous  ; the  other  an  ancient  empire  before 
Rome  ruled  in  Gaul  and  Britain,  intensely  conservative  and 
proudly  exclusive,  harrassed  with  famines,  floods  and  insurrec- 
tions, largely  ignorant  of  the  world  and  content  with  herself,  and 
yet  with  great  talent,  with  literature,  and  scholarship,  while  the 
mass  of  the  people  are  ignorant  and  illiterate  ; the  one  nation 
known  as  Christian,  and  the  other  tolerant  in  her  attitude 
towards  all  religions,  Confucianism,  Buddhism,  Taoism  and 
Mohammedanism,  Nestorianism,  Romanism  and  Protestantism  ; 
the  one  looking  towards  the  future  and  forgetting  too  much  of 
her  own  past,  the  other  living  still  in  the  past ; and  veiling  too 
much  the  demands  and  possibilities  of  the  future, — such  are  the 
two  countries  facing  each  other  to-day,  and  demanding  the 
soundest,  broadest  diplomacy,  the  truest,  bravest  convictions, 
and  the  calm  of  a conscience,  true  to  itself  and  yet  just  to 
others,  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  and  the  Absolute 
Monarchy  of  China  ! God  bless  them  both  ! 


